UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BASF CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01125
`U.S. Patent 7,601,662
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF
`SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BASF CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01125
`U.S. Patent 7,601,662
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF
`SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petitioner (“Umicore”) has argued that the copper chabazite (“CuCHA”)
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`catalyst claimed in the 662 Patent is obvious based on the combination of prior art
`
`describing the use of low SAR copper-exchanged zeolites for the selective catalytic
`
`reduction (SCR) of NOx and a process for de-aluminating zeolites to increase their
`
`SAR. Umicore further argues that the combination of these decades-old prior art
`
`elements produces predictable results, and more generally, that the ranges of
`
`atomic ratio of copper to aluminum (“Cu/Al ratio”) and silica-to-alumina ratio
`
`(“SAR”) claimed in the 662 Patent produce expected results. IPR2015-01125,
`
`Petition at 59-60. As explained in BASF’s Patent Owner Response, the
`
`combination of a CHA zeolite with the claimed Cu/Al ratio and SAR produced
`
`unexpected results in comparison to known prior art zeolite catalysts and solved a
`
`longstanding problem that was well documented in the prior art. BASF presents
`
`this motion to submit additional information showing that, not only does
`
`Umicore’s claim of obviousness run directly contrary to an array of objective
`
`publications regarding the use of zeolite catalysts for the SCR of NOx, but it also
`
`runs contrary to Umicore’s own prior statements. Specifically, statements made by
`
`Umicore in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0038875 (“the 875
`
`Publication”) directly contradict Umicore’s contention that the claimed Cu/Al ratio
`
`and SAR in the 662 Patent are insignificant and produce expected results.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Therefore, and as explained more fully herein, BASF contends that consideration
`
`IPR2015-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`of the 875 Publication in these proceedings would be in the interests of justice.
`
`
`
`BASF also contends that it could not have reasonably obtained the
`
`information earlier. BASF first learned of the 875 Publication when it was
`
`published in English on February 11, 2016 (the day before BASF’s Patent Owner
`
`Response was due in the IPR). After examining the history of the 875 Publication
`
`and comparing it to the positions taken by Umicore in this IPR, BASF, on April
`
`21, 2016, notified Umicore of the inconsistency and its intention to submit the 875
`
`Publication to the Board. Umicore argues that BASF could have found the
`
`German language publication earlier by conducting searches, but offers no
`
`explanation for why BASF knew or should have known to search for inconsistent
`
`statements in Umicore’s own later-filed CuCHA patent applications. Moreover,
`
`Umicore’s position is at odds with the IPR rules, which require that “a party must
`
`serve relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the
`
`party.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii). The existence of the earlier German
`
`publication and the 875 Publication fall squarely within the scope of this rule, and
`
`thus it was Umicore that was obligated to bring this information to light at the very
`
`outset of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`BASF respectfully requests that the Board grant its motion for submission of
`
`supplemental information.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`II. APPLICABLE RULES
`
`IPR2015-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`
`
`A request for late submission of supplemental information is governed by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123(b) which states as follows: “A party seeking to submit
`
`supplemental information more than one month after the date the trial is instituted,
`
`must request authorization to file a motion to submit the information. The motion
`
`to submit supplemental information must show why the supplemental information
`
`reasonably could not have been obtained earlier, and that consideration of the
`
`supplemental information would be in the interests-of-justice.”
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Consideration of the 875 Publication is in the Interests-of-Justice
`
`
`
`Considering information that contradicts a parties’ stated position is in the
`
`interests-of-justice because it promotes the search for the truth. See Edmund
`
`Optics, Case No. IPR2014-00599, Paper 44 at 4 (“With respect to the issue of
`
`whether submission of the supplemental information is in the interests of justice,
`
`we are mindful that a trial is, first and foremost, a search for the truth.”) (citing Nix
`
`v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 166 (1986)). As explained below, the 875 Publication
`
`plainly contradicts Umicore’s position in the Petition that the Cu/Al ratio and SAR
`
`are insignificant and produce expected results.
`
`
`
`The 662 Patent claims priority to a provisional application filed on February
`
`27, 2007, and claims a CuCHA catalyst for the SCR of NOx having a Cu/Al ratio
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`between 0.25 and 1.0, and a SAR between 15 and 150. Exhibit-1001 at Claim 1.
`
`IPR2015-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`The 662 Patent also includes dependent claims narrowing those ranges. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibit-1001 at Claim 7 (requiring a Cu/Al ratio between 0.30 and 0.50 and SAR
`
`between 25 and 40). Umicore asserts that the claimed CuCHA catalyst is obvious
`
`in view of Maeshima (U.S. 4,046,888), which discloses the use of metal-
`
`exchanged zeolites having a low SAR (2-6) for the SCR of NOx, and Breck (U.S.
`
`U.S. 4,503,023), which discloses a process for de-aluminating zeolites to increase
`
`their SAR.1 In the Petition, Umicore contends that the combination of these
`
`references produces expected results because increasing Cu/Al and SAR results in
`
`a predictable and linear increase in NOx conversion. IPR2015-01125, Petition at
`
`59-60. Umicore, however, paints an entirely different picture regarding
`
`predictability and significance of Cu/Al ratio and SAR ranges in its own patent
`
`application, the 875 Publication, directed to a CuCHA catalyst.
`
`
`
`The 875 Publication stems from a PCT application that was filed in Europe
`
`on April 1, 2014. The U.S. national stage application was filed on September 25,
`
`2015, and includes an oath signed on September 11, 2015 by the named inventor,
`
`Dr. Schütze. Exhibit-2036, Exhibit-2037. The 875 Publication is entitled
`
`
`1 Umicore also asserts that Dedecek, which discloses a low SAR CuCHA zeolite,
`
`in combination with Breck renders the claims obvious.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`“CuCHA Material for SCR Catalysts” and describes a CuCHA catalyst having a
`
`IPR2015-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`Cu/Al ratio (0.25 to 0.35) falling within the range claimed by the 662 Patent, and a
`
`SAR (10 to 15) bordering the range claimed in the 662 Patent. Exhibit-2036 at
`
`[0016-0017]. The 875 Publication goes on to state that by specifying such a
`
`CuCHA zeolite “one arrives advantageously but no less surprisingly at the
`
`solution to the task posed above. The present material shows excellent stabilities
`
`and activities (FIG. 1) in this combination of features, even after hydrothermal
`
`aging at 850 °C.” Id. at [0015]-[0018]; see also [0035] (“Such CuCHA catalysts
`
`have a superior nitrogen oxide reduction ability with low nitrous oxide production
`
`(high selectivity), whereby in particular the low-temperature activity with respect
`
`to the reduction of nitrogen oxide is excellent. This was not to be expected in
`
`view of the prior art.”). It is further explained that “[t]he present invention shows
`
`that it is vital for the formation of the corresponding advantageous CuCHA
`
`zeolite material that the ratio of silica to alumina on the one hand and its ratio
`
`of the copper existing in and/or on the zeolite, is crucial for the activity and
`
`hydrothermal stability as well as the good low-temperature activity of the
`
`material…” Id. at [0020].
`
`
`
`The inconsistency between the positions Umicore has taken in this
`
`proceeding versus its own patent application is apparent and demonstrates a lack of
`
`credibility. Prior to filing the IPR, in an attempt to secure a patent on a CuCHA
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`catalyst, Umicore took the position that a particular Cu/Al ratio and SAR range
`
`IPR2015-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`produced an unexpected result and that the balance between those two parameters
`
`was “vital” and “crucial” to the alleged invention. In contrast, in its Petition,
`
`Umicore contests the earlier 662 Patent by arguing that Cu/Al ratio and SAR
`
`ranges produce nothing more than expected results.
`
`
`
`Umicore may argue that its statements are not inconsistent because the 875
`
`Publication includes a disclosure regarding the crystal size of the CHA zeolite that
`
`is not present in the 662 Patent. This is a red herring. First, Umicore’s statement
`
`in the 875 Publication regarding the “vital” and “crucial” relationship between the
`
`Cu/Al ratio and SAR range is silent regarding crystal size. Exhibit-2036 at [0020].
`
`Second, in any event, the crystal size of an exemplary CHA zeolite embodiment
`
`disclosed in the 662 patent falls comfortably within the crystal size range proposed
`
`in the 875 Publication (0.75 to 2 microns). Exhibit-2036 at [0018]. Although the
`
`662 Patent does not specifically mention crystal size, it notes that the CuCHA
`
`zeolite can be synthesized using processes well-known in the art, and explicitly
`
`refers to SSZ-13 as a viable synthetic CHA zeolite. Exhibit-1001 at 4:31-38. The
`
`synthesis of SSZ-13 is described in a 1985 Patent. Exhibit-2035; see also Exhibit-
`
`2018 at ¶¶ 76-77. Zones, which is cited by both the 662 Patent and the 875
`
`Publication, notes that the crystal size of SSZ-13 is 1.2 microns. Exhibit-1004 at
`
`7:19-20. Accordingly, the discussion of crystal size in the 875 Publication does
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`not in any way detract from the inconsistent position taken by Umicore regarding
`
`IPR2015-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`the significance and predictability of the claimed and unclaimed ranges of Cu/Al
`
`ratio and SAR.
`
`B.
`
`BASF Could Not Reasonably Have Obtained the 875 Publication
`Earlier
`
`
`The 875 Publication is not prior art to the 662 Patent, nor was the application
`
`
`
`
`that led to the 875 Publication or the related German application referenced in any
`
`of the papers, declarations or exhibits submitted by Umicore or BASF. Unlike
`
`Umicore, who has been aware of the 875 Publication since the outset of this
`
`proceeding, BASF discovered the 875 Publication when it published in English on
`
`February 11, 2016. BASF’s Patent Owner Response was due on February 12,
`
`2016. Umicore’s argument that BASF could have discovered the German version
`
`of the publication earlier by conducting searches misses the mark because it
`
`incorrectly presumes that BASF knew or should have known that Umicore was
`
`taking inconsistent positions in a foreign CuCHA patent application filed many
`
`years after BASF’s 662 Patent. Moreover, shifting the burden to BASF to
`
`exhaustively search for inconsistent positions by Umicore would be contrary to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii), which required Umicore to serve relevant information
`
`inconsistent with the positions it was advancing in the IPR. Umicore did no such
`
`thing despite the fact that at least one employee, Dr. Schütze, was substantively
`
`involved in both the 875 Publication and the IPR.
`
`7
`
`
`
`With regard to prejudice, on the conference call with the Board, Umicore
`
`IPR2015-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`
`
`
`appeared to argue that introduction of the 875 Publication would be problematic
`
`because the oral hearing is scheduled for the end of July. Umicore has been aware
`
`of the contents of the 875 Publication for years. The oral hearing is still more than
`
`two months away. There is sufficient time for this information to be considered by
`
`the Board. Finally, Umicore also argued that it was prejudiced by not being able to
`
`depose BASF’s witnesses regarding the 875 Publication. Umicore, however, failed
`
`to note that it canceled the noticed depositions of three BASF declarants (Dr.
`
`Ahmad Moini, Dr. Stanley Roth, and Pramod Ravindran) after BASF notified
`
`Umicore about the 875 Publication. There is simply no prejudice to Umicore.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Anish R. Desai /
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg. No. 36,801)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7000
`E: anish.desai@weil.com
`
`
`
`Dated: May 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on May 13, 2016, the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION was served via electronic mail, upon the
`
`following:
`
`Elizabeth Gardner
`Richard L. DeLucia
`K. Patrick Herman
`A. Anthony Pfeffer
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019-6142
`egardner@orrick.com
`rdelucia@orrick.com
`pherman@orrick.com
`apfeffer@orrick.com
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/ i
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7075
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
